SECTIONS 9 AND 10 OF THE RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899: THE EROSION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL BY ENVIRONMENTAL SUITS Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899' grant the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) control over obstruc- tions to navigable waters.2 Section 9 outlines the requirements for ap- 1. 33 U.S.C. §§ 401, 403 (1976). 2. The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 contains several sections pertaining to Corps author- ity over navigation. Obstructions other than those listed in sections 9 and 10 are placed under Corps control in other parts of the Act. Section 11 of the 1899 Act, id. § 404, empowers the Secretary of the Army to authorize harbor lines beyond which no structures may extend. Section 10 permits are now required for structures within the harborlines, although they were not necessary until 1970. 42 Fed. Reg. 37,161 (1977). Section 12, 33 U.S.C. § 406 (1976), makes violations of sections 9, 10, and 11 criminal acts and imposes fines up to $2500 or imprisonment for up to one year or both. This provision also allows for the removal or abatement of offending structures. Until recently violators were rarely prosecuted, and even now the Corps and the Justice Department are reluctant to prosecute. HOUSE COMM. ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, INCREASING PROTECTION FOR OUR WATERS, WETLANDS, AND SHORELINES: THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, H.R. REP. No. 1323, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 16-26 (1972). Section 13 (commonly known as "The Refuse Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 407 (1976), prohibits the discharge of "any refuse matter of any kind or description" into navigable waters. The Corps of Engineers, the Congress, and the Nixon administration all conceived the idea of prohibiting water pollution under this section at roughly the same time. The House Government Operations Com- mittee first raised the issue in March of 1970. HousE COMM. ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, OUR WATERS AND WETLANDS: HOW THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS CAN HELP PREVENT THEIR DESTRUCTION AND POLLUTION, H.R. REP. No. 917, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). President Nixon established a formal section 13 permit program on December 23, 1970. Exec. Order No. 11,574, 3 C.F.R. 575 (1970). The Corps almost simultaneously promulgated the regulations for the pro- gram. 33 C.F.R. § 209.131 (1972). These actions were endorsed by many environmental groups. Rodgers, IndustrialWater Pollutionand the Refuse Act: A Second Chancefor Water Quality, 119 U. PA. L. REV. 761, 767-69 (1971). At least one commentator saw the danger of employing a 70-year-old provision to do the work of a comprehensive water pollution control program. See Comment, DischargingNew Wine into Old Wineskins: The Metamorphosisofthe Rivers andHarborsAct of.1899, 33 U. PITT. L. REV. 483, 485 (1972). This use of section 13 proved to be a problem, and the program was suspended for one year following the case of Kalur v. Resor, 335 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1971), in which the permit program was found to violate the terms of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4361 (1976). Congress subsequently passed the 1972 Amendments to the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, § 402, 86 Stat. 816 (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (1976)), which prohibited the Corps from issuing further section 13 permits. The new Act gave the Environmental Protection Agency sole authority to issue water pollution discharge per- mits. Section 13 remains viable for criminal enforcement, but only when no permit is issued for the discharge. 42 Fed. Reg. 37,123 (1977); see HOUSE COMM. ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, Vol. 1980:1701 RIVERS AND HARBORS A CT proval to construct dams, dikes, bridges, or causeways in a navigable waterway.3 This provision apportions legislative approval authority between the state legislatures and the United States Congress: a state legislature has authority over those structures in waterways that are navigable only within its boundaries, while Congress possesses ap- proval power for those structures in waterways that are navigable in more than one state.4 In both cases, the Corps must consent to the construction of the project. Section 10 gives the Corps exclusive authority to approve con- struction of smaller structures, such as wharves, booms, and bulkheads, as well as to approve dredging and filling operations. 5 This section also bans all obstructions to "the navigable capacity of any of the waters of ENFORCEMENT OF THE REFUSE ACT OF 1899, H.R. REP. No. 1333, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. 50-51 (1972). See also United States v. Pennsylvania Indus. Chem. Corp., 411 U.S. 655, 662-63 (1973). Section 14, 33 U.S.C. § 408 (1976), provides for the preservation against seizure or damage of all structures built by the United States in navigable waters. Section 15, id. § 409, prohibits the use of floating or sunken vessels, or floating logs and timber, to obstruct navigable waters. Section 16, id. § 411, establishes criminal penalties consisting of one-year imprisonment and up to a $2500 fine for violations of sections 13, 14, and 15. 3. Section 9 provides: It shall not be lawful to construct or commence the construction of any bridge, dam, dike, or causeway over or in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other navigable water of the United States until the consent of Congress to the build- ing of such structures shall have been obtained and until the plan for the same shall have been submitted to be approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of the Army: Provided,That such structures may be built under authority ofthe legislature of a State across rivers and other waterways the navigable portion of which lie wholly within the limits of a single State, provided the location and plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of the Army before construc- tion is commenced. Andprovidedfurther,That when plans for any bridge or other struc- ture have been approved by the Chief of Engineers and by the Secretary of the Army, it shall not be lawful to deviate from such plans either before or after completion of the structure unless the modification of said plans has previously been submitted to and received the approval of the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army. Id. § 401. Bridges are now under the approval authority of the Secretary of Transportation. 49 U.S.C. § 1655(g)(6)(A) (1976). The Department of Energy holds the delegated congressional ap- proval power for hydroelectric dams and projects. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7151(b), 7172 (Supp. 11977). 4. 33 U.S.C. § 401 (1976). 5. Section 10 provides: The creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, har- bor, canal, navigable water, or other water of the United States, outside established har- bor lines, or where harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity, of any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor or refuge, or inclo- sure the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same. Id. § 403. DUKE LAW JOUIVAL [Vol. 1980:170 the United States,"'6 unless the obstruction is affirmatively authorized by Congress. Sections 9 and 10 together attempt to protect the strong federal interest in open and unfettered waterborne commerce between the states, while allowing for the accommodation of local interests. The slow assertion of federal control over internal waters culminated in the 1899 Act.7 Prior to 1890, private obstructions to nav- igable waterways were constructed without regard to their effect on navigation. Many of these structures carried the imprimaturs of local legislatures. The Supreme Court repeatedly held that the United States could not force the removal of these obstructions without an act of Congress asserting federal control over the waterways.8 In response to these decisions, Congress passed the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1890,9 establishing the requisite federal control. Although the subsequent Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 purported merely to codify earlier acts, 10 including the 1890 Act, it actually constituted a wholly different division of control between the Corps, the state legislatures, and Con- gress. " Lacking an accurate legislative history for sections 9 and 10, the courts and the Corps have had to fashion their own interpretations of the Act. The interpretative problems center on the meaning of the terms used in the Act to describe the types of waterways covered and the various structures for which approval must be obtained. These terms outline the limits of Corps administrative power under sections 9 and 10. Accordingly, the Corps has consistently construed the terms to favor a broad exercise of its own power.' 2 Until the early 1960s the courts' interpretation of the two sections was similar to the Corps' view of its own power.' 3 The courts extended the scope of the Act and left the broadened power in the hands of the Corps.